[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: canonicalization

• To: veillard@r...
• Subject: Re: canonicalization
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 10:47:04 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20020304043645.E18835@r...>
• References: <3C833AB2.3040807@t...><1015032338.3309.3.camel@l...><p04330103b8a7fd271d04@[192.168.254.4]><1015178176.5268.43.camel@l...><p04330104b8a8106aa395@[192.168.254.4]><1015193078.3350.61.camel@l...><p04330107b8a85bc15730@[192.168.254.4]><1015201142.3309.108.camel@l...><3C82B747.5020609@t...><20020304025635.C18835@r...><3C833AB2.3040807@t...>

At 04:36 AM 04/03/02 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 01:13:22AM -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>> Could you achieve the same effect with a perl script?
>
>  yes you can also validate and probably 100x time faster a document
>directly by accessing the node tree with a high level language. And
>I will argue an awful lot of people still do this too.
>
>> I'm beginning to think that trying to do cheap content management
>> down in the markup just doesn't have a positive payoff. -Tim
>
>  It's just a matter of API level. As parts get used more they
>gets forged as API. Better building API at a syntax level than 
>in the programing language syntax. I call this sedimentation...

That's precisely what I'm disagreeing with... I'm becoming
more & more convinced that inclusion and aggregation have so
much application-specific hair, and the cost of trying to 
model them generally is so high, that we should just kick
them out of the syntax and at the level of *interoperability*,
we should talk in terms of whole fully composed XML documents.
 -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Next by Date: Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Previous by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Next by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread